Theologians to ask Pope to suspend limbo?

[palmas85]

otm:

That’s nice, but that doesn’t show that the theological construct of Limbo was ever a defined doctrine of the Church.

For the last time, I never said it was!!! geez can’t you guys read?

 

[Kielbasi]

Limbo was most definitely taught as a doctrine, both explicitly in the Baltimore catechism (already posted), but also, more importantly in the actions of the church.

It was always taught that extraordinary actions should be taken to baptise dying babies, including baptising dying children against their parents will. If such children were already saved, that would be pretty pointless.

Pope Pius IX took a lot of heat when a Jewish child subject of his was baptised against the parent’s will. Regardless of the pope’s actions, there is absolutely no doubt that the housekeeper did the right thing in accordance with Catholic teaching.

 

[AltarMan]

Limbo was most definitely taught as a doctrine, both explicitly in the Baltimore catechism (already posted), but also, more importantly in the actions of the church.

It was always taught that extraordinary actions should be taken to baptise dying babies, including baptising dying children against their parents will. If such children were already saved, that would be pretty pointless.

Pope Pius IX took a lot of heat when a Jewish child subject of his was baptised against the parent’s will. Regardless of the pope’s actions, there is absolutely no doubt that the housekeeper did the right thing in accordance with Catholic teaching.

You’re mistaken.

 

[bear06]

AltarMan:

You’re mistaken.

It would seem this way. It appears that Kielbasi is confusing Limbus Patrum taught in the Baltimore Catechism with Limbus Infantum. Limbus Infantum has never been taught as doctrine. And, as someone already pointed out, Limbus Patrum was abolished when Christ took the faithful that died before His resurrection to Heaven. Limbus Infantum is a theological theory that has been argued about by the greats long before we came along.

 

[AJV]

ncjohn:

I apparently misunderstood you Palmas. I read your post to say that the Limbo of the Children thing that floated around for so long, official or not, was the same thing as the Limbo of the Fathers in that people were thinking that unbaptized babies were being consigned to the limbo of the Fathers.

If I’d thought about it a little more, realizing how “up” on things you are, I would have realized that I must have misunderstood. At any rate, thanks for clearing things up.

Peace,

I also apologize Palmas as I too misunderstood you.

St. Gabriel patron of communication pray for me.

 

[pira114]

Pius X:

There is an old tradition (Irish, I believe) that the unbaptized babies graves are baptized by the rain which comes from God. Just another way of saying Trust in God Mercy.

Correct. In Irish tradition babies would go to heaven, not limbo. God would have Mercy on them and reward them anyway.

As for limbo, I can find no Scriptural reference to it that gives it the same meaning as the Baltimore Cathechism. As far as I can see, it ceased to exist.

 

[Brendan]

Kielbasi:

Limbo was most definitely taught as a doctrine, both explicitly in the Baltimore catechism (already posted), but also, more importantly in the actions of the church.

If you would review my post above (#17), you will see that the Limbo referenced in the Baltimore Catechism is the Limbus Patrum, which no longer exists. It was emptied when Christ decended into Hell and removed the just souls saved under the Old Law ( Old Testament Saints)

The item under question is the Limbus Infantum, the Limbo of the Children.

 

[AltarMan]

pira114:

Correct. In Irish tradition babies would go to heaven, not limbo. God would have Mercy on them and reward them anyway.

As for limbo, I can find no Scriptural reference to it that gives it the same meaning as the Baltimore Cathechism. As far as I can see, it ceased to exist.

Who cares about “Irish tradition”? I certainly don’t. I care what the Church teaches, and it does not teach that unbaptised babies go to “limbo.”

 

[Pius_X]

Neither does Irish tradition. Irish tradition says unbaptized babies go to heaven NOT limbo.

 

[Achatius]

I always thought that Limbo was not only a place for unbaptised babies but also for the virtuous non-believers, and those unfit to gain entry to heaven, is this wrong?

 

[whosebob]

Achatius:

I always thought that Limbo was not only a place for unbaptised babies but also for the virtuous non-believers, and those unfit to gain entry to heaven, is this wrong?

JMJ + OBT​

There is a great article which covers this topic in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:

Limbo

Note that old CE isn’t the “end all and be all” of Catholic wisdom, doctrine, and thinking – it’s almost a century old now, and while most of the scholarship within it is of platinum-standard, it does have its weak points (e.g. in treating Eastern Christianity) and the ordinary Magisterium has developed since the old CE’s publication.

The wholly revised 2002 edition of the1967 New Catholic Encyclopedia can be purchased in print and in an electronic edition, the cost being about US $1,500.00 for either format.

Unfortunately, it will probably be a long time before the NCE 2nd edition is made freely available on-line (send an e-mail or a bunch of them to the Catholic University of America petitioning for free access to the NCE!).

One important point made in the old CE article; I will quote from it and then follow-up with some commentary:

Only professed Augustinians like Noris and Berti, or out-and-out Jansenists like the Bishop of Pistoia, whose famous diocesan synod furnished eighty-five propositions for condemnation by Pius VI (1794), supported the harsh teaching of Petavius. The twenty-sixth of these propositions repudiated “as a Pelagian fable the existence of the place (usually called the children’s limbo) in which the souls of those dying in original sin are punished by the pain of loss without any pain of fire”; and this, taken to mean that by denying the pain of fire one thereby necessarily postulates a middle place or state, involving neither guilt nor penalty, between the Kingdom of God and eternal damnation, is condemned by the pope as being “false and rash and as slander of the Catholic schools” (Denz. 526).

It’s not entirely clear from this quote (see this post by Gottle of Geer for more information), but Pope Pius VI seems at least to have been characterizing the Jansenists’ rejection of the “children’s limbo” as “false and rash.” Those who would reject it today are coming from the opposite end of the theological spectrum compared to the Jansenists – the Jansenists were arguing that unbaptized infants suffer eternal torment in Hell; today’s theologians seem eager to declare that they enjoy the same eternal beatitude as the Saints.

In any case, it will be interesting to see what the theological commision recommends to Pope Benedict XVI. There is a more balanced article that covers this story, published the other day by Zenit:

Theological Commission Studying Limbo

Also, there is an interesting thread in the CA forums discussing this matter from an “East vs. West” perspective:

Limbo and Orthodoxy

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[palmas85]

AltarMan:

Who cares about “Irish tradition”? I certainly don’t. I care what the Church teaches, and it does not teach that unbaptised babies go to “limbo.”

The truth is it does not teach where they go at all. That is probably why it allowed people to believe that they went to a halfway decent place,as Limbo was supposed to be.

 

[pira114]

AltarMan:

Who cares about “Irish tradition”? I certainly don’t. I care what the Church teaches, and it does not teach that unbaptised babies go to “limbo.”

It was just a response to something someone else said. I just confirmed what they said. You know, for someone who claims to care about what the Church teaches, you sure could use some instruction on how to treat others. I think you better change your screen name until you can live up to it.

 

[Cradle]

As it’s been said, the Church does not have any teaching on the existence of the Limbo Infantum (yet?). However, I don’t know if this is because I’m lacking in theological understanding, but I see a problem with such a “half-way” place… After the parousia, there will be only Heaven and Hell, right? So where would those in the proposed Limbo Infantum go? This limbo doesn’t really seem to permanently address the problem… or maybe I’m just missing something…

 

[thistle]

pira114:

It was just a response to something someone else said. I just confirmed what they said. You know, for someone who claims to care about what the Church teaches, you sure could use some instruction on how to treat others. I think you better change your screen name until you can live up to it.

I agree. he was pretty rude!

 

[mosher]

What is missing in this discussion is the issue that we are bound to believe all things posited for belief by the Church and are not free to “opt-out” if we do not understand them. Limbo (Limbus Patrem or Puerorum) are indeed official teachings of the Church. However, not all teachings carry the same weight of certitude. A matter of faith or “de Fide” is a dogma and is true absolutly such as “There is no salvation apart from the Church” (Extra ecclesial non solus) or the Immaculate Conception. Limbo falls under a different category. The Limbus Patrem is equated to the Bosom of Abraham and is where Christ went to release the rightous. The Lumbus Puerorum of “of the children” is a bit different from that. It is derived from the Dogma that states “Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God” (De Fide).

Here is the excerpt from Dr. Ludwig Ott’s book “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”:

The 2nd General Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence declared … he soul of those who die in original sin as well as those who die in actual mortal sin go immediatelu into hell, but their punnishment is very different.

The dogmas is supported by the words of Our Lord [in] … John 3,5

The article goes on to treat the issue of baptism of blood like the holy innocents of Bethlehem and baptism of desire (both the desire of the parents (from Cajetan) and/or the desire of the child at the moment of death by the gift of reason. It further speaks of the declerations of the Church including Pope Innocent III and many Early Church Fathers in support of the state of those in Limbus Puerorum as a state of perpetual bliss. The opinion was officially adopted by the Church by Pope Pius VI against the views of the Synod of Pistoia.

 

[mosher]

Cradle:

As it’s been said, the Church does not have any teaching on the existence of the Limbo Infantum (yet?). However, I don’t know if this is because I’m lacking in theological understanding, but I see a problem with such a “half-way” place… After the parousia, there will be only Heaven and Hell, right? So where would those in the proposed Limbo Infantum go? This limbo doesn’t really seem to permanently address the problem… or maybe I’m just missing something…

Limbo is technically a part of hell.